Bar has right to raise CJ extension issue, says lawyer

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla has weighed in on the controversy surrounding yesterday’s “Opening of the Judicial Year” event, saying that it is the Malaysian Bar’s right to raise the extension of Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif’s tenure at the event.

He also criticised Raus’s explanation on making himself the sole speaker at the annual event for being “trivial”.

“I am of the opinion that the excuse given by Raus as the chief justice was not only not based on solid reason, but trivial and showed how the principles of natural justice have once again been betrayed.

“Isn’t the existence of a constitutional crisis, especially when it disputes the credibility of the chief justice and the Court of Appeal president, a current issue among the people? Does this not demand the Bar touch on it in its speech?

“If the Bar wishes to touch on it in its speech, isn’t it it’s right to raise reasons why it supports a different reading of the issue for the benefit of public understanding?” asked Haniff in a statement today.

Raus (photo) previously reasoned that it was “not proper” of the Bar to raise the issue of his extension at the event and said he had made himself the sole speaker after the Bar insisted to stick to its guns.

“If you speak on the issue, the attorney-general (Mohamed Apandi Ali) may want to respond to it in his speech. I also looked at two pages of a copy of Malaysian Bar president (George Varughese's) speech, in which he raised the issue.

“They (the Bar) are insisting on raising the issue, which is in court. Objections cannot be raised at a public forum like this. Look, this event is organised by the judiciary. Say there is an invitation sent to people in your house, but you criticise the host - it would be unfair right?

“Hence, we decided to change the format this year, because of their (the Bar's) insistence. I told the AG (Apandi) that there would be one speech, only by me,” he previously said.

In response, the Bar has blamed the judiciary for muzzling it while Varughese (photo) has vowed to maintain its opposition to censorship.

The “Opening of the Judicial Year” event, formerly known as the “Opening of the Legal Year”, previously featured speeches from the chief justice, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar on current issues facing the state of the judiciary.

A tradition started by the British, the event was first held in Malaysia in 2010.

Others have right to hear Bar’s views

Haniff, who often acts as Pakatan Harapan chairperson Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s lawyer, added that the Bar’s lawsuit only concerned two top judicial posts and did not involve the entire judiciary.

“Don’t the others in the judiciary have the right to hear (the Bar’s) views and discuss among themselves this constitutional crisis?” he asked.

The extension of the services of Justice Raus and Justice Zulkefli as CJ and president of the COA has been questioned by the legal fraternity as they have both passed the mandatory retirement age of 66 years and six months.

Besides the Bar having filed the challenge against the appointments of Justice Raus and Justice Zulkefli, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Parti Amanah Negara also mounted a legal challenge.

However, the challenge from Mahathir and Amanah has been struck out. The Bar's challenge is to be heard before the Federal Court, based on five questions of law allowed by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, namely:

• Whether under Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution an additional judge can be appointed on the advice of the CJ, with the appointment taking effect after the latter’s retirement;
• Whether under Article 122B(2) of the Federal Constitution the president of the Court of Appeal can be appointed upon the prime minister consulting the chief justice, and if the appointment can take effect after the retirement of the said chief justice;
• Whether under Article 122(1A), read together with Article 122B(1), 122B(2) and Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, an additional judge can be appointed as the chief justice or the president of the Court of Appeal;
• Whether the appointments of judges by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Articles 122(1A) and 122(1) of the Federal Constitution is justiciable; and,
• Whether the appointment of additional judges and thereafter, of the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal being announced while they were serving judges but to take effect after their retirement, violates Article 122(1), 122(1A) and 125(1) of the Federal Constitution.

-Mkini